CurvedSpace Forums: Science Trivia - CurvedSpace Forums

Why is it impossible to perfectly tune a piano or any instrument?

Yay band

Err, I think it has something to do with the intervals/notes on the octave..because they can't all be tuned perfectly all at the same time. I'm not sure how to describe it though, heh >.< If you tune one interval well, then another one is made out of tune..

but I dunno how it relates to science, so

Err... Because the basis of any musically instrument is its ability to vibrate. In order to perfectly tune it, you would have to stop that vibration to stop the fluctuation.
Meh.

On a stringed instrument, each time one string is tuned, at least one other will go slightly out of tune.

Star, you're right on what happens. But I haven't seen the cause yet. I'll give you all a hint. This actually relates to quantum, but is a famous principle. I wont give the name or it gets too easy, though.

As for the hint, something easy to imagine. Lets say you have a string with one end attached to a wall. I give a little jerk on one end of the string and this one little pulse sent down the string. If I asked you, where is the wave, you could easily point at where the peak of that pulse is and tell me where the wave is. But if I asked you about the wave length, or distance between peaks, you wouldn't be able to tell me anything, right?

Now let's say I keep moving the string up and down, so I have a nice wave on the string. Lots of peaks and valleys, etc. If I asked you the wavelength, now you could easily walk over, measure the distance between peaks, and give me an answer. But if I asked "Where is the wave?" You again, wouldn't be able to answer.

So back to the problem. Think about a similar situation with an instrument. Another useful hint, it's not so much that the instrument cannot be tuned, as what we're hearing cannot sound correct to our ear.

Seeing as I won't have physics until later.. I have no idea. *dreads physics*

At least I think it has something to do with physics, lol.

:: pokes star:: It's not that bad. It is actually math as to the proof of this problem in alot of different things.

If you all want, I can just give the answer and first one to reply goes next?

ok

Okay then.

The analogy I gave is the reason it doesn't work. Think of frequency of sound, and the corresponding pitch, versus time.

If I play a song at a certain speed, there is a limit on the frequency I can pick up. Play too fast, and I can't discern the pitch correctly. So it would sound horrible. In fact, interesting thing to note is the slower drawn out forms of music are better at being correctly tuned, and thus sound strange to most people. Example: gregorian chants. The time put into each note is longer (on average) and sounds odd to most people to hear something perfectly in tune.

The concept arises in Quantum mechanics when you talk about the Uncertainty Principle. (Such as if you know where a Particle is exactly, you have no idea about it's energy, since the momentum becomes ill defined. Or if you know the energy, you don't know where the particle is.)

Alrighty all. next person gets to ask a question.

Goto: I just wanted to point out that I didn't post, so I don't have to ask the next question.

Wow, no takers. Fine. ::cracks knuckles::

Deuterium is a light element, highly unstable (hint hint hint) and is an excellent probe for the current measure on the density of matter in the universe. However, it is exceedingly rare (1 part in 10^5 atoms of Hydrogen) and easily destroyed. Why is it safe to believe that deuterium is not being formed in hot star forming regions of space, and could possible give us a false result on the expected density of it.

And this has very little to do with science. All you need is right there, and a general idea that temprature related to average kintetic energies of a particle and that density goes up as you create a star.

(:

No one going to try? Such a beautiful thread is dead.....

I blame you.

...I'll give it a shot I suppose. Was trying not to be greedy with the questions since I didn't answer any , then the topic got lost in all the other things in my head.


What is all the non-coding DNA in a genome?



Side note, it seems kind of sad that the inspiration for my questions and my game character names is the same: look around the room at all the nerdy stuff.

I think I'm subconsciously avoiding this place because I keep getting outscienced so badly, between Rylkan and Zoo they're pretty good me beat in any area.

Hmm.. I know zero biology, but this kind of rings a vague bell possibly, from science fiction of all places.

Is non-coding DNA the same thing as junk DNA, stuff which serves no purpose or whose purpose we don't currently understand? I seem to remember that quite a large amount of the DNA in a genome was like that, and semantics would suggest that the two terms are quite possible equivalent. So yeah, either it's redundant stuff from earlier in the evolution of an organism, or we don't understand what it does, or so forth.

Off-topic: Book I just finished reading was trying to use Brane theory as a plot device. A highly advanced civilization in another brane was trying to communicate with ours (a long time in the future) by making use of the fact that gravity was free to travel between them. Weird indeed.

That [junk DNA] is what has been believed until fairly recently. New ideas are out there.